Two Visions of van Gogh

I recently watched two documentaries about Vincent van Gogh: one, simply called Vincent, came out in 1987, directed by Paul Cox and narrated by John Hurt.  The other is called Van Gogh: Painted with Words (2010), directed by Andrew Hutton and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Vincent.  Both of them are comprised entirely of words taken directly from period sources, principally from van Gogh's letters to his brother Theo.  Yet, they're strikingly different takes on the same man and the same events.

The Paul Cox film is powerful in great part because of its pure simplicity and cohesion.  It consists entirely of a narration of van Gogh's letters to Theo, voiced by John Hurt, while the camera moves over scenes of the places, buildings, and countryside like those that van Gogh frequented and painted.  The few actors that actually appear in the film are not heard at all--they move silently across the screen, almost ghost-like.  You have the sense of being in van Gogh's head, of hanging suspended amid those images as you listen to his thoughts as he expressed them to his beloved brother.

The Andrew Hutton film, on the other hand, is slightly unnerving from the very beginning as it seems to mirror the schizophrenia that tormented van Gogh.  Contrary to the meditative quality of the Cox film, this one jumps rapidly from shot to shot, from disconcerting close-ups of van Gogh's face to views of his cell in the asylum, to other images or lines that you don't fully grasp at first.  It also goes back and forth between Alan Yentob in the present, narrating and explaining, and Cumberbatch and the other actors portraying van Gogh in his own time.  Personally, I found this style to be more jarring and less effective--at first.  But as I went along, I got that sense that what the director wanted to capture was not just the emotional and spiritual weight of van Gogh's words, but also the frenetic energy that dominated his character.  This movie is less of a cerebral-emotional experience and more of a visceral-emotional experience.  You definitely get a more powerful sense of his madness in this one--a more accurate picture of how he appeared to others and why he had such hard time with relationships, and life in general.

This is also reflected in Cumberbatch's performance vs. John Hurt's.  Hurt's version was more of...well, a narration.  It was a little more even-keel, though that is not to say that he expressed less feeling!  The emotional impact of Hurt's performance was very powerful--just less effusive.  Cumberbatch's interpretation was much more volatile, moving abruptly between manic intensity and quiet, profound depression.  Hurt conveyed more melancholy while Cumberbatch conveyed the sense of a man striving desperately to make a place for himself in the world and leave something behind that was worthwhile.

I think both interpretations are beautiful, and these two documentaries complement each other well.  I might still prefer the style of Cox's film; it seems much smoother and more crafted, while certain scenes and transitions in the Hutton film irked me a bit, but Hutton's movie also has a gritty quality to it that I appreciate.

On the other hand, perhaps the Cox film, by showing only the inner life of van Gogh and framing it with a reverence bordering on idealism, is the less realistic, or maybe less complete, portrayal of the two.  But they're both true--whether you want to lose yourself in the inner world of van Gogh's mind or witness all the inconsistent, nervous energy of a very flawed but brilliant man struggling to make his way among others, both of these homages to Vincent van Gogh are well worth your while.